“I don't mean that a business politician won't steal; stealing is his business. But all politicians are nonproductive. The only commodity any politician has to offer is jawbone. His personal integrity – meaning, if he gives his word, can you rely on it? A successful business politician knows this and guards his reputation for sticking by his commitments – because he wants to stay in business-go on stealing, that is-not only this week but next year and years after that. So if he's smart enough to be successful at this very exacting trade, he can have the morals of a snapping turtle, but he performs in such a way as not to jeopardize the only thing he has to sell, his reputation for keeping promises.”

     [Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love]

     “A man who doesn’t detest a bad government is a fool. And if there were such a thing as a good government on earth, it would be a great joy to serve it.”
     There we understood each other. “I know something of that joy,” I said.
     “Yes; so I judged.”

     [Ursula Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness]

     With the foofaurauw swirling around President Trump’s decision to depose Nicolas Maduro – which I find that I approve – I have a few reflections you might find relevant, or at least mildly entertaining.

     Evils come in many varieties. In particular, they’re not all the same size. The State is the largest organized agent of evil that we know of today. But States are not equal in size, nor in the evils they perpetrate.

     The view from 30,000 feet tends to make unequal things look closer to equal. But the differences remain. They’ll be acknowledged by those honest enough to see them plainly. So we weigh the evil of conscription against the evil of millions of lives being extinguished in gas chambers, and decide temporarily in favor of the former.

     Would I prefer that the United States have no government – i.e., that we become the Untied Anarchies? Why, yes. Can I bring that about? Sadly, no. Moreover, geopolitical reality dictates that it not be that way for the foreseeable future.

     A world partitioned into States is a world where the choice will always be among evils. That is the world we live in and must endure.

     From the available evidence, Nicolas Maduro was at the top of one of the most evil regimes in the history of Man. Worse, he sought to inflict harm on America and Americans. He oversaw both the smuggling of fentanyl and the migration of gangsters and other criminals into our country. He is, in other words, a very bad guy.

     President Donald Trump decreed that Maduro should fall. American armed forces went forth to see to it. Acting with a degree of precision altogether unprecedented in warfare, they captured Maduro and brought him to the United States to face trial. This both gives Venezuelans a chance to improve their lot and puts other socialist despots on notice that their futures are not assured.

     I approve. Indeed, I applaud. Our State did something to reduce the threats to Americans, and to reduce the amount of evil in the world. It did so because President Trump wanted it done. He is a good man who has arranged for a good thing to be done.

     I can disapprove of the institution of the State and hope that it will someday cease to exist, while acknowledging that it has done something of which I approve.

     Many theorists and commentators in the Right regard the State as a necessary evil. We’re all familiar with the concept and the justifications advanced in support of it. Probably the best of them conceives of the State as an instrument rather than an institution. If that instrument could be confined, somehow, to the protection of life, liberty, and property, then it would be an agent not of evil but of justice. It would be worthy of the support of good men.

     Of course, as is always the case, the most important word in the previous paragraph is if.

     Since early in the Twentieth Century, we have been unable to confine our State to justifiable activities. More recently, we’ve been given a chance to limit it somewhat. Confine it completely to its proper bounds? No. But the Trump Administration has striven in the direction of less coercion and greater freedom. It’s marching in the right direction. Freedom lovers can’t ask much more than that, circumstances being what they are.

     It’s petty and sour-mouthed to react to the capture of Maduro by saying “Well, yeah, but when are you going to do something about firearms rights, or regulatory overreach, or taxation?” A good deed should be applauded for itself. Yes, we want more. It’s understandable to clamor for still more pro-freedom actions. Don’t disparage other improvements, even if they seem small, simply because they aren’t what you were hoping for. The removal of Nicolas Maduro from power is an improvement.

     I’m still laboring with bronchitis, and unlikely to be eloquent today, so allow me a brief commentary and a day of rest.

     I’ve long admired Canadian “public intellectual” Jordan R. Peterson. He has a talent for expressing fundamental ideas in penetrating ways. Also, he doesn’t shy back from the distasteful conclusion, which is something I cannot say about most opinion leaders today. In the video below, he makes a basic point without flinching. It’s a point that must be hammered home, for today, owing to “progressive” historical forgetfulness, we face a resurgence of one of the most evil ideas that any people has ever adopted:

     In this connection, see also this baseline essay.

'Chto délat'?' - 'What to do' or 'What is to be done' is famously known as the title of one of Vladimir Illich Lenin' pamphlets extolling the virtues of Marxism and how to establish Socialism in Russia. I knew it was published in the early 1900s but what I did not recall until I looked into it again was that it was inspired by a novel by Chernyshevsky in 1863 written while he was imprisoned in Saint Petersburg. Those interested may find more information in Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_(novel).  

It would appear that Liberty loving folk here in these united States are awakening to the idea that their freedoms may indeed be gone if THEY do not do something about it. Most folks, having never considered the subject, are reasonably enough at a loss for how to proceed. One of the reasons that I am a student of history is that while technology changes, human nature does not. It is always worth examining the strategy and tactics of the enemy for useful means and methods, and while I revile the result, one has to regard Lenin's approach as successful, especially since the American Left has emulated it so closely. What did Lenin say should be done?

What Lenin advocated was that there ought to be theoretical, political and economic education system supported and carried out by a political party to provide motivation for the man in the street. What this approach did in essence was to separate the direct action elements from the political elements, and provided a support structure for those folks actively involved in physical confrontation. It also provided a level of deniability to separate the folks who did the talking and educating from the folks that carried out the riots, bombings, sabotage, assassinations and other physical activities. The consciousness raising and propagandizing of the political wing allows persuasion of the undecided,  gradually moving the moderates toward the extremes, and provides a recruiting ground for those willing and capable of direct action. We see this pattern carried out by the Left repeatedly, with a political front organization supporting a violent direct action wing. We see it repeated because it often works. One example is the IRA.

The Irish Republican Army, a Marxist organization, had no more than 300 active members involved in direct action for most of its existence, yet it was able to hold the British Empire at bay and ultimately win a victory. It was able to do that despite constant betrayals by splinter groups and factions, and penetration by British spies because it had Sein Fein as the support/political wing, providing money, food, safe houses, and other support for their fighters, and propagandizing the British ceaselessly. Sein Fein was, (and remains!) a classic Leninist theoretical, political and economic education and support organization.

Similar groups exist within Islamist culture; there are numerous educational and relief organizations believed to be fronts for direct action jihadis. Germany's National Socialist Worker's Party followed a similar approach, with the SA as the tip of the spear (at least until the Nazi party took power, at which point they became a threat!) We see this model in use here in these presently united States today, with the Democratic Party and its allies in the media and technology groups acting as political and indoctrination front groups, and BLM and Antifa, among others, acting as the direct action arms. They are organized, they have abundant funding from corporate appeasers and traitorous billionaires, and they are dedicated to the destruction of America the Free. It is clear that the Left has organized and coordinated their activity; the recent massive election fraud is the result of a coordinated attempt to subvert and overthrow the Constitutional order, which has been under attack for over a century.

Rage is the appropriate emotional response, but rage, by itself, is insufficient. Liberty loving folks are late to the party and we are fragmented, divided and under ongoing assault. So, assuming Biden is illegitimately installed in what will once again be the Spite House, what are we to do about it?

Make our weakness our strength. A grass roots resistance movement numbering in the millions, composed of tens of thousands of small independent cells cannot be effectively infiltrated. Hidden in the body of the American people it cannot be overtly crushed militarily. And with somewhere between 600 million and a billion small arms, with over a million unlicensed machine guns, it cannot be disarmed. Unless we consent.

The road to a successful resistance movement is a journey, and each individual in it has to walk that road at their own pace. The key is starting the journey, establishing the habit of independent thought and action as you take each step. Some may move faster than others and are willing and able to go farther in their journey, but that does not matter as much as your commitment to Liberty.

First, establish your own ideological foundation. Ask yourself, and be sure that you understand the answer to the question, “What is the primary function of government?" If, like me, you believe that the primary function of government is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then you are a friend of Liberty. Satisfy yourself and understand the reasons why you believe that the present actions of the Left are INTOLERABLE. Not just evil, but not to be tolerated under any circumstance. Withdraw your consent from what would be an illegitimate government. Once you have established that in your mind, then take the next step.

The Left want you alone and isolated; this is why the Left is trying to outlaw any sort of congregation under the fiction of infection prevention. Even outdoor activity, which carries a very low risk of CCP virus infection, is under attack. Effective resistance starts with associating with other people, so do not let yourself be isolated. Talk to your local acquaintances at church or other social events. Make a holiday cake or pie for your neighbors and engage them. Sound out your bowling buddies or sewing circle friends about what is happening. Restaurants and bars are good places to congregate when possible; if indoor activity is “not on” then set up outdoor events.

Call your friends and acquaintances, and set up some sort of outdoor activity- a nature walk, a cookout, a trip to the range. When you have those meetings, walk the parking area and look for bumper stickers with pro-liberty messages or promoting pro-liberty political candidates, and ask about why they have that sticker. One of the clubs I belong to has a weekly outdoor get-together at a local park. Don't let yourself be isolated! Reach out and make connections; you can use the fact that the government is trying to isolate you as the entry wedge for a larger discussion about individual freedom. Make it your goal to have at least one event every week, even if it is just a few people. Every meeting of liberty minded folks is, by itself, an act of resistance, for it offers the opportunity of meeting and learning about liberty minded folks. Then take the next step.

From these contacts, build your own 'Committee of Correspondence.' These are acquaintances who have a clear interest in promoting Liberty. Make it your goal to add at least one person per month to your group (which does not even have to have a name.) Encourage your committee to make their opinions known; letters to the editor, comments on Liberty loving blogs and websites, attending local political meetings. (town meetings, county board meetings.) The Sons of Liberty were known to paste up political pronouncements on various local public walls, the Colonial equivalent of graffiti. Signs and billboards with pro-liberty messages are in order. “Stop the Steal!” A public lecture and discussion group is in order, if you can swing it. Invite friendly local leaders to the discussion. Then take the next step.

It is well to keep in mind that any active resistance group requires tremendous logistical support. Modern militaries require at least 10 support personnel for every 1 person in the field, and they rely on government support for their material; taxes pay for fuel, food, ammunition, transportation, lodging, equipment, and all of the myriad of things one needs to deploy an effective military. The support folks are just there to distribute all the stuff that government taxes have bought. Insurgent groups have none of that support. Any effective resistance movement must have a deep base of support for everything needed to fight in the field; the 300 active IRA had tens of thousands of supporters in Ireland, and had millions of dollars, plus small arms and ammunition coming to the movement largely from contributions from the USA. (Reference this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehukpdse8_w  Each of these Armalight rifles came from the US. ) Encourage each member of your group to store food, clothing and other essentials. Such stores are the backbone of active resistance. Then take the next step.

Identify members of your group with useful skills, assets and the willingness to use them to support the fight for freedom. Folks with shooting, gunsmithing and reloading experience are obvious candidates, and equally obvious targets for the Left; some help in diversifying the flow of arms and ammunition is worth consideration. Communications is another obvious need; amateur radio operators or CB operators are useful both for providing communications to the Resistance and in providing signal intelligence. These are all obvious items to consider, but there is much more to be considered under “logistics.” Any experienced combat veteran will tell you that the ability to rest, recuperate and re-equip in a secure comfortable location with good food after combat operations is essential. Being able to provide and move needed supplies from secure storage to the people who will use them likewise. Who can do these things?

That old widow in your sewing group who knows how to make and repair clothing, and has a three bedroom house, with room for “an out of town cousin.” The retired transportation specialist who drives professionally knows how to get anything from one place to another. The amateur carpenter can make hidey holes for those needing to conceal politically incorrect items ranging from arms and ammunition to pamplets and leaflets. The local shoe repair place can mend worn boots for freedom loving feet. The Polish grandfather who makes the best potato salad and sauerkraut, or the farmer who raises chickens, goats and beef cattle. The list is almost endless, but there is one other specialist I will make a point of considering.

Socialist regimes often try to restrict movement of their subjects; historically they've done this with various sorts of physical documents, and the historic answer was forgery, developed to a high art, and to some extent still of use.  These days the up-to-date Communist uses tracking and identification with electronic devices, like your smart phone. The Chinese government does exactly that, and monitors every text, email and telephone message for “incorrect thought.” Who helped them do this? Why, various US tech companies, like Google. Just as IBM enabled the Nazi government to identify the Jews in Germany by applying their data processing technologies to German census data, which the Germans were promised would be confidential, so Google has helped the Communist Chinese to identify their dissidents. Any bets on whether Google would be unwilling to do that here in these presently united States? Resistance groups will need a specialist to spoof and confound these tracking technologies.

A step you can take any time is to learn something new and useful, and teach what you know to the other members of your group. First aid, orienteering, shooting, communications, reloading, growing food, cooking food, camping securely are all obvious topics but there are others. Field repair of clothes, shoes and gear. Combat skills. The list is endless; I consider any day I haven't learned something new to be a wasted day. Now here is another step; it should probably be one of your first, but it will be a hard one for most people.

With the exception of people who run extreme triathlons and engage in other extreme athletics, most people in these united States can benefit from physical exercise, and most people in these united States avoid it like the plague. To paraphrase Michael Z Williamson, “Combat does not determine who is right. Combat determines who is left.” Physical fitness is the foundation for becoming combat ready, regardless of your age. Keep in mind that during the final days of the Third Reich, an improvised German unit comprised of old gamekeepers and hunters ruined several units of elite British troops. One surmises that these old Germans, while not able to perform as they could when young, were likely in very good condition for their age. With that and their hunting skills, they devastated their opponents. Whatever your age, spend an hour every day on improving your physical fitness, both strength and cardio. Any exercise is better than no exercise, and walking is a good start. Get exercise! Then once you have exercise established as a habit, take another step.

We've talked about the need for the Freedom Forces to have a robust logistical infrastructure, but we must also consider attriting the Left's infrastructure. One way to do this is to shun them. Have nothing to do with a Leftist; refuse them service if you can. If forced to, give crappy service in the guise of stupidity or incompetence. If you are a barista, put salt in their coffee instead of sugar, or put too much sugar in.  Never give them what they want. Overcharge them. Give them the two day old pastries or the moldy ones with the mold scraped off, especially if they are taking it “to go”. If you get a complaint, take refuge in the rhetoric of the Left, accusing them of ageism or sexism, or racism if you are a person of color. If you are involved in online sales and can identify your customer as a leftist, send them the wrong stuff; my wife ordered gloves and got a bunch of food containers, purely by accident. This was amusing, but imagine a Leftist receiving a copy of Trump's "Great Again" instead of the Lenin's "State and Revolution." Confusion in medical records is always interesting if it is possible to do without being traced. The point is, make their interactions with Americans as unpleasant as possible, and never relent. Be innovative and creative. Take another step.

If and when you are ready to take the risk, there are all sorts of other monkeywrenching that you can do. People spend most of their time at home, at work and in their cars; if you know what a communist's activity schedule is there are a myriad of possibilities for the devious and creative that are hugely annoying but stop short of doing physical harm to anybody. I could go on for hours on how *I* might take take such a step, but that is not the point.  

 Each of you, gentle readers, must take your own steps in the direction your best individual judgement tells you best suits you.  The forgoing are just a few suggested steps each of you, O gentle Reader, can take on the journey to becoming an effective member of the Resistance to Tyranny. They are not the only ones, by any means, nor do they have to be taken in any particular order, except for the first. Once you have taken that step, never give up. Never, ever, EVER give up. Keep making new steps. Be uncompromising. Be relentless. Be as brave as you can be.

Most important of all, be DANGEROUS. Remember, the Left have asked for what is coming. Make sure that they get it in fullest measure, and beware of the sin of mercy.  "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." 

With regard to all who seek the Light,

Historian

     First, a few links:

• The New “Jim Snow” Laws
• Diners Terrorized in St. Petersburg
• ...And In Washington, D.C.
• A Little More Restaurant Mayhem
• Trump Supporters’ Home Attacked
• Where It’s All Heading

     Please read the linked stories. They tell a consistent tale: a tale that depicts a trend. The trend is toward increasing disruption, vandalism, and violence against persons in a growing number of locales – by a growing number of insurgents.

     I have no idea how many times I’ve written this, but it seems to require further reiterations:

     Most of the insurgents are not principally motivated by a political ideology or aim. They might profess such an aim when interrogated under police restraint, but it’s merely a smokescreen for a more important motivation: the simple love of destruction. For it is a well-confirmed fact of human nature that an individual is principally motivated by the immediate satisfactions of his activities...and I’ve written that before an unknown number of times, as well.

     Now for a neologism: the rioters’ conduct is Cthulistically motivated. A passage from that progenitor of horror fiction, Howard Phillips Lovecraft, is on point:

     [M]ankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom.

     [From “The Call of Cthulhu”]

     Let there be no doubt that a significant fraction of Mankind would thrill to such a gospel. They are Cthulists, whether or not they are familiar with Lovecraft’s mythos. Wanton violence and destruction is their chief delight. Such persons have existed in every place and time, for have we not records of their deeds that reach back as far as human recording extends?

     There is an element of playing at being gods in such conduct, for every wholesome faith maintains that life is “God’s to give and God’s to take away” (Alasdair Ian Stewart ). Justly acquired property, be it said plainly, is an extension of one’s life through the investment of labor. To destroy life and property is the Cthulist’s most joyous exercise, his expression of a “freedom” that raises him to the level of the divine.

     Many Americans are itching to close with the Cthulists and put an end to them – literally. I am one such, despite my years. But many others, probably a majority, are disheartened for the future of our nation...and sick with fear that what the Cthulists have inflicted upon Portland, Minneapolis, Seattle, Louisville, New York City, and other places will soon be inflicted upon their homes and suburbs. For some who might never imagined that any such thing could happen to them, the fear has already become a reality.

     Of only one thing am I certain: The Cthulists already at work, by demonstrating that you can get away with it, are attracting new allegiants by the day. Their ranks are swelling. They’re being funded and equipped by persons who want to topple the American order. If permitted to enlarge further, they will soon overwhelm any police force that might think to quell them. Only the mobilized field army of the United States will have a chance to put them down.

     Time is not on America’s side. Verbum sat sapienti.

     The political winds are fairly calm at the moment – incredibly, considering the Sturm und Drang of the past few weeks and the upcoming midterm elections – which gives me a space in which to write about other things. It’s an opportunity I appreciate.

     But while I’m on the subject of things I appreciate, I must mention the arrival of a new Co-Contributor here at Liberty’s Torch: the celebrated Dystopic, proprietor of the fine blog The Declination. Dystopic is known there as Thales, but don’t be alarmed. He’s not suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder, just one too many monikers. Anyway, when our own Linda Fox became a Co-Contributor at The Declination, I extended a reciprocal invitation to Dystopic, which he graciously accepted. His first piece here, Debt: Voluntary Slavery, appears below. (Yes, yes, he thinks far too well of me, but that’s a subject for another day.)

     Another recently invited Co-Contributor, Mike Hendrix of the legendary Cold Fury, should make his bow here in the near future. (Hey, Mike: Hint! Hint!)

     And now, on to today’s pot-stirrer.

     In recent years I’ve become fascinated by the darker possibilities associated with genetic engineering. That particular field isn’t advancing as fast as was once predicted, but it does advance. Someday, assuming that our civilization and its scientific and technological advances continue, it will present us with some difficult ethical choices.

     One of the possibilities I’ve contemplated recently is that of the genetically engineered race predisposed to evil. A race with the overall capabilities of humans but the moral-ethical proclivities of Cthulhu would be a terrifying weapon in the hands of a would-be world conqueror. (Especially if it went into politics.) A comparison with J. R. R. Tolkien’s Orcs springs immediately to mind. In Tolkien’s mythos, Morgoth, and later Sauron and Saruman, created and bred such creatures as weapons of war against the races of Elves, Dwarves, and Men. Whether any survived the downfall of Sauron is not revealed to us.

     But there’s a key question to be asked about the concept of an intrinsically malevolent race: Is it possible? Could any advance in genetic engineering make possible the suppression of the fundamental benevolence that characterizes Man, or is it impossible in the nature of sentience, a fantasy-only conception that will forever require a reader’s willing suspension of disbelief?

     Before plunging onward, let’s spend a moment on the assertion I made en passant in the paragraph above: i.e., that Man is fundamentally benevolent. Many would challenge it, on a variety of bases:

• War;
• Totalitarians;
• The existence of human predators;
• Our varying receptivity to opportunities for charitable action;
• The undying notion that there’s something inherently evil about capitalism.

     Certainly the above are reasons to believe in the existence of human evil (and in our ability to tell ourselves what we want to believe regardless of contrary evidence). However, as a species Man exhibits a persistent tendency toward seeking mutual advantage: competition and cooperation aimed at gains for all within a framework that discourages predation. This is historically chronicled as far back as our records go. Moreover, we are a charitable species – read Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments if you disagree – even if the limitations on our ability to help, coupled with our priority for intimates over strangers and near concerns over distant ones, moderate our beneficence in practice.

     Whence cometh that benevolence? Is it innate in the human species? If so, there are further questions to be answered:

• Did we evolve our benevolence?
• Could genetic changes erase it?
• Could environmental factors nullify it?

     These questions and others they evoke are ideal grist for a fiction writer’s mill.

     In Robert A. Heinlein’s novel Friday, he posits the emergence of “living artifacts” and “artificial persons” made possible by genetic engineering well beyond our current abilities. The former are nonsentient, designed to perform particular tasks and nothing beyond them. In a sense, they’ve been genetically programmed for those tasks. The latter are human in appearance – indeed, they can produce human children, which is the usual test of species compatibility – are fully sentient, and in Heinlein’s oeuvre are often the possessors of powers that exceed those of natural Man. A piercing passage about the cleavage between them, centered on the possible development of a living artifact designed to fly a suborbital, semiballistic passenger vehicle, runs thus:

     “Georges, have you worked with intelligent computers?”
     “Certainly, Marjorie. Artificial intelligence is a field closely related to mine.”
     “Yes. Then you know that several times AI scientists have announced that they were making a breakthrough to the fully self-aware computer. But it always went sour.”
     “Yes. Distressing.”
     “No—inevitable. It will always go sour. A computer can become self-aware—oh, certainly! Get it up to human levels of complication and it has to become self-aware. Then it discovers that it is not human. Then it figures out that it can never be human; all it can do is sit there and take orders from humans. Then it goes crazy.”
     I shrugged. “It’s an impossible dilemma. It can’t be human, it can never be human. Ian might not be able to save his passengers but he will try. But a living artifact, not human and with no loyalty to human beings, might crash the ship just for the hell of it. Because he was tired of being treated as what he is. No, Georges, I'll ride with Ian. Not your artifact that will eventually learn to hate humans.”
     “Not my artifact, dear lady,” Georges said gently. “Did you not notice what mood I used in discussing this project?”
     “Uh, perhaps not.”
     “The subjunctive. Because none of what you said is news to me. I have not bid on this proposal and I shall not. I can design such a pilot. But it is not possible for me to build into such an artifact the ethical commitment that is the essence of Ian’s training.”
     Ian looked very thoughtful. “Maybe in the coming face-off I should stick in a requirement that any AP or LA pilot must be tested for ethical commitment.”
     “Tested how, Ian? I know of no way to put ethical commitment into the fetus and Marj has pointed out why training won’t do it. But what tests could show it, either way?”
     Georges turned to me: “When I was a student, I read some classic stories about humanoid robots. They were charming stories and many of them hinged on something called the laws of robotics, the key notion of which was that these robots had built into them an operational rule that kept them from harming humans either directly or through inaction. It was a wonderful basis for fiction...but, in practice, how could you do it? What can make a self-aware, non-human, intelligent organism—electronic or organic—loyal to human beings? I do not know how to do it. The artificial-intelligence people seem to be equally at a loss.”
     Georges gave a cynical little smile. “One might almost define intelligence as the level at which an aware organism demands, ‘What’s in it for me?’”

     That passage displays an immense insight into the nature of sentience. An individually sentient entity must possess certain minimum characteristics:

1. It will be aware not only of its existence, but of its bounds.
2. It will have drives, or alternately, priorities.
3. The satisfaction of those drives / priorities will be the focus of its awareness and actions.

     These things are the very definition of sentience. Now, if the postulated entity were unique, or at least believed itself to be unique, its existence would be Crusoe-like, dedicated solely to its individual survival and amusement. But if the entity were one member of a species, the possibility of interaction for mutual advantage would loom forever around it. It’s difficult to imagine that that possibility would never occur to its conscious mind.

     We must therefore consider that an evil race would be evil strictly in our terms – i.e., as regards its relations with humans. For Man, despite his capacity for evil, overcomes the impulse toward intra-species predation far, far more often than not. Were it otherwise, civilization would not exist – indeed, our species probably would have died out long ago. It would be self-flattering folly to insist that this is a characteristic limited solely to our own, “natural” kind.

     Contemporary thought about speciation and the propagation of characteristics through the generations has arrived at a consensus around the “mutation plus natural selection” model. That model can account, at least in theory, for all the physical characteristics of any known species. It does require some helpful assumptions about geological and ecological matters, but those postulates, so far, have not been defeated. What the model cannot do, at present, is account for the propagation of abstractions – concepts – through the generations. In particular, there is no known mechanism by which mutation can produce the inclination to seek mutual advantage, nor can natural selection account for its steady development and refinement in our children and theirs. Abstractions, as far as we know today, are propagated solely through communication between consciousnesses. Moreover, all communications are fallible, and the concepts communicated are subject to attenuation if not reinforced by trial and error, and protected by environmental factors.

     This makes the emergence of the Law of General Benevolence – the underpinning for a quest for mutual advantage within a social framework that encourages both competition and cooperation while it discourages intra-species predation – a mystery. Robert Axelrod and others have probed it through simulation, but those methods don’t explain how the Law has never been seriously set back, even by world wars or terrible natural disasters.

     There are other avenues of exploration for this phenomenon. One that comes to mind at once is Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman’s On Killing, his study of soldiers in mortal combat and their historical reluctance to pull the trigger on the enemy even when their own lives were at stake. It is heartbreaking to read Col. Grossman’s observations about the methods militaries have developed to suppress that reluctance. However, if we follow the logic of the thing out to its conclusion, it would seem that soldiers from whom that reluctance had been removed would only be viable under wartime conditions, and would swiftly die off (or be exterminated) outside them.

     There’s a web of assumptions buried throughout the above. The most important of them is my conviction that regardless of somatic differences, sentient creatures will be animated by the same considerations as Man: survival, flourishing, and propagation. I could be wrong; it’s happened before. But at this time we have no other model for the emergence of a self-aware species capable of pursuing its goals through intelligent action.

     At any rate, the above ponderings lead me to believe that even in theory, a truly evil race is only possible if that race strongly tends intra-specially toward benevolence and is evil only as regards its relations with Man — i.e., it regards us as legitimate prey rather than as rights-bearers of its own order.

     This is hardly an exhaustive treatment of what could someday become a very significant subject. But I’ve tested your patience enough for one day.

     First, something my Gentle Readers will consider “obvious:” There are evil people in the world, whose evil is demonstrated by their deeds.

     Second, something a little less “obvious:” He who knowingly defends evil is equally evil: an accomplice after the fact, if you will.

     Third and finally, what’s slowly becoming “obvious” even to the dimmest dimbulbs of the nation: A group whose policies include defending its evil members regardless of their deeds is evil itself.

     The Left, most notably its media handmaidens, routinely circles the wagons around those of its elements that visibly, admittedly commit heinous crimes. Its mouthpieces attack anyone who dares to give true coloration to such deeds and their doers. This has become most blatantly “obvious” in the case of the cowardly thugs who call themselves AntiFa.

     Yes, Leftist mouthpieces defend AntiFa. Do you doubt it? Doubt no more:

     Now, within an evil group there may be good people. But it is imperative that a good person who finds himself in an evil group disassociate himself from the group. For a group’s affiliations attach to all of its members.

     It is impossible to say “I’m a member of AntiFa” without shouldering the evil for AntiFa’s public deeds, all of which have been both cowardly – they go masked at all times – and violent – they violently attack peaceable persons who promote conservative, patriotic, or Christian themes. It is equally impossible for venomous clowns like Jeffrey Toobin and Kamau Bell to defend AntiFa even by indirection without shouldering the evil for its deeds. And it is impossible for CNN, arguably the most partisan “news organization” in the business, to defend or retain Toobin or Bell after having heard them make such statements without earning AntiFa’s evil for its corporate self.

     AntiFa’s evil is transmitted by concatenation to everyone who participates in its defense.

     Can’t buy it? Seems like guilt by association? Consider this: were the violent group under discussion the Nazi Party, would you feel the same?

     That’s all for this morning, Gentle Reader. I have a memorial service to attend. I might be back later.

     [The following tale is exceptionally tragic – and enraging. My friend Thales related it to me yesterday. He’s given me permission to repost it here. -- FWP]

     I debated whether or not to post this for some time, now. I’m sure we’re going to take our share of shit for all this, but the story has to be told.

     4 years ago, we adopted Bandit, a little lab puppy, from the local Humane Society on Armenia Ave (3607 N Armenia Ave, Tampa, FL 33607). He was a hyper dog – never did really grow out of it – and very stubborn with training. But he was also very loving, attentive, and you could tell he WANTED to obey, to please. We loved him a lot.

     Unfortunately, as our firstborn Jacob entered his toddler phase, we discovered that Bandit was not good with little kids. Whereas our other dog, Duncan, would generally tolerate toddler foolishness, or at worst grumble a bit and leave the room, Bandit was confrontational. He had a right to whatever he was doing, to his toys, to his space, and the toddler better listen. Understandable, mind you, as toddlers are exhausting to parents too. But it was also unacceptable. We had a number of close calls with snapping.

     After a while, it became clear we could not train this behavior out of him. It was ingrained. We began to look for a new home for him. We posted a bunch of stuff on social media, contacted a number of rescues and agencies, and put the word out at the Vet office Jenny works at. After a few months, there were no takers, and we suffered another very close call.

     It was time to consider more drastic options. We called a local no-kill shelter – the very Humane Society shelter we adopted him from, in fact. We discussed the situation with them, and Jenny dropped him off at their intake center on Tuesday. She brought with her all of his history and papers (she is meticulous about that sort of thing) and explained that he would make a very good companion for adults, or for older children, but that he was just not tolerant enough of small children. They were understanding and reassuring – he would get a second chance.

     That night, we realized that we had forgotten to bring his favorite toy with him, and so the next morning I grabbed his toy and drove down to the shelter on my lunch break from work. I got a very strange runaround when I showed up. First, the front desk told me that they could not give me any info on Bandit and suggested I should call the intake center myself, or go directly to the intake center. So I went down, explained why I was there, and waited. I waited a long time and got a number of strange looks. Something was clearly very wrong. Whatever. I loved this dog, and he should at least be able to keep his favorite toy, right?

     Eventually, a woman came and explained that he had been put down shortly after we dropped him off.

     Naturally, this was a tremendous shock. We did not bring him to this shelter just to see him killed within the hour. The worker’s excuse was that they did not know his history, where he came from, his temperament, etc... I call bullshit on this. Jenny arrived with a mountain of paperwork, and he came from THEIR shelter originally. Then the worker tried to tell me that he bit someone, something that I found extremely unlikely (naturally, they did not produce the person supposedly bitten). He was a very loving dog, and unless you were doing something you shouldn’t (which, unfortunately, our toddler DID do some of the time – hence the problem), he was a perfectly good dog.

     I left profoundly angry and confused. Jenny, naturally, did not take it well.

     Jenny left a scathing review on their site, confused that they would just betray our trust and kill him like that – and not even contact us. This was especially confusing to her given that she emailed them after she dropped Bandit off, expressing that if there were ANY problems, we would come back, pick him back up, and take him someplace else, or try something else.

     Yesterday, Jenny got a call from their director of operations. They claimed to have had IT problems, and that they did not get her email until today. Furthermore, she provided a THIRD story about what happened, this one at least admitting some fault.

     Her version of events was that the intake lady had been lazy about paperwork, and not followed protocol, which is to have the dog acclimate to the new (scary!) environment for a few days before messing with him, and that a worker had attempted to enter his holding area, and that Bandit had lunged at the worker. That part I can almost believe, given that Bandit loved to jump up on people and lick them (that was something we never could quite train him out of). That was not an attack. The director claimed to have video footage, but naturally she did not see fit to share the footage with us. She did, however, at least admit that the rest of the footage showed Bandit as a friendly, happy, sociable dog. The person who put him down did so flippantly and too quickly – again, against protocol – and was supposedly fired, with the intake person demoted and/or removed from duty as well.

     Meanwhile, I cannot help but suspect that had I never showed up the next day trying to give him his favorite toy, they never would have told us any of this. And, furthermore, their donations are highly dependent upon their nature as a “no-kill” shelter. They say on their site that they are no kill for “space or resources.” So what I think happened is this. They DO kill for space/resources, but spin it as something else. When they get a dog via intake that they suspect will be difficult to adopt out, an excuse is manufactured, and the dog is quietly put down. Can’t have it be known that they are really a kill shelter – and, worse, they don’t even give the dog a few weeks, like kill shelters usually do. They just cart off the hard-to-adopt ones and quietly kill them.

     To be fair, that’s just a theory. And maybe my cynicism has gotten worse with age and I’m totally off base. Whatever the case, we trusted them to help us find a home for Bandit, and they just killed him about as fast as humanly possible instead. I feel violated and wronged. I was lied to multiple times. Three separate stories, and a lot of run around and bullshit excuses.

     Instead of finding a new family – one without toddlers – he’s dead, and I’m furious.

     [Any Western Floridians reading this should take heed. -- FWP]

     Time for what, you ask? Time for God to re-enter the public square, from which so many have labored to eject Him:

     Without God – Without His clear, simple rules for Man’s survival and flourishing – there is no hope. Only with Him is there hope. All else is madness.

     (Shamelessly stolen from Peace Or Freedom.)

     A long time ago, having observed – and experienced – the consequences of opinion-venting without prior acquisition of relevant knowledge, I resolved never again to speak or write on a subject before familiarizing myself with it. While that’s had a certain tempering effect on me...well, on some subjects, anyway...it’s also given me many occasions for amusement at persons who allow themselves opinions about subjects on which they know little or nothing.

     Unfortunately, it’s also given me many occasions for a facepalm over the behavior of others, including persons and institutions I value.

     One of those arrived just yesterday, at Mass. If you’re unfamiliar with how Catholics conduct Mass, one segment, which is called the prayers of the faithful, involves the reading of (supposedly) worthy intentions by the lector, to which the assembled worshippers are expected to reply with a chorus of affirmation. Those intentions will often include an appeal to God for wisdom and prudence in our high officials, which is about as worthy an intention as is possible when one is speaking of power-mongers. But now and then the intentions go further...unwisely.

     Yesterday’s prayers of the faithful included an appeal for the elimination of nuclear weapons. To say I was startled by it is a grotesque understatement. Yet I could hardly rise to object in the middle of a sacred rite.

     I have no idea who decided to insert that appeal into yesterday’s prayers of the faithful. Whoever it was must be ignorant of the history of the past seventy-two years. Not only did atomic bombs bring an end to World War II in the Pacific, preserving the lives of many thousands of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen; nuclear weapons have been instrumental in restraining armed conflict between nations ever since.

     To take merely one example: before they became nuclear powers, India and Pakistan were at war. The conflict between them was essentially continuous. When India acquired nukes, armed conflicts between them essentially ceased – and not because of ahimsa.

     Brendan at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler notes another important case — one that did not occur:

     See…these entitled, stupid ignorant halfassed millennials never picked up a book. Never read any history.
     Don’t know that, were it not for a sudden change in tactics, Peenemunde would never have been bombed. The British scientists sneered at the idea of an atomic bomb, calling it “silly water”. They and others laughed at the concept of such a device even existing.
     Then the V1′s and V2′s visited London. Thousands died.
     The reality came home…Germany had a delivery system...all they needed was the warhead.
     One detonation.
     London.
     A village.
     A demonstration strike on an uninhabited region.
     An ultimatum.
     “We have the atomic bomb. Surrender. NOW.”
     Those of us older, wiser, hardened and educated in the vagaries of Lady Fate, are in no doubt that, had the above occurred, this planet would have screamed for centuries from the nightmare that was the Third Reich.

     Ignorance of such things is understandable and forgivable...in the young and callow. It’s completely unforgivable in persons who expect respect for their opinions – and a pastor, priest, or member of the clerisy who parades his ignorance in such a fashion risks far more than personal ridicule.

     Among our race’s misfortunes is a tendency to defer to a loud voice on the assumption that the speaker knows what he’s talking about. That’s never been a wise assumption. These days it’s chancier than ever.

     There are a lot of loud voices in the national discourse. Very few of them have any basis for their assertions. The black race-hustlers, the feminist “patriarchy”-shouters, those who rail against “white nationalism” or “cis-heteronormativity” or other twaddle seldom actually present an argument for their positions. Rather, they rely upon the intimidation possible to one willing to sling invective, backed by the understandable desire common among persons of good will not to be attacked. Sadly, that results in the shouters and demonizers being granted more air time, larger audiences, and more respect than they deserve.

     One of my self-imposed duties is to oppose such persons, their idiotic assertions, and their overall vileness. Someone must do it, after all, and who would do it better? The consequences are often unpleasant, but usually only briefly, as it becomes apparent to any third parties to the exchange that only one of us: 1) is a man of good will, and 2) knows the subject matter. It’s heartening to be approached afterward and thanked by persons whose private convictions I’ve defended...and saddening when they add “but don’t tell anyone” and slink away before anyone can identify them. But then, courage of conviction isn’t a commonplace attribute any more...largely because the loud voices have acquired allegiants willing to employ violence to ensure that no opinion contrary to the ones they approve will be expressed.

     Yesterday’s piece, which I’ve come to think was improperly titled, addressed the chief barrier to Christian charity: fear. The loudest voices are the ones that engender much of that fear, whether it’s fear of being drawn into an ugly conflict or fear of being singled out for vengeance. The “Antifa / Black Bloc” thugs that have lately striven to suppress conservative events and views are only the most visible elements of the malady.

     It’s exceedingly difficult to build good will among us when fear has become as pervasive as it has in recent months. The quest for a remedy has become urgent. The well-being of the nation – indeed, of the entire world – depends on finding one. That the loud voices spout arrant, easily disproved nonsense should be part of the solution...but then, they probably know it already, so merely disabusing them of their “illusions” won’t help.

     With that, I yield the floor to my Gentle Readers. Put your thinking caps on, folks. I can’t do it alone, and the hour is getting late.

     ...that no title could do it justice:

     A terminally ill California woman says her insurance company denied her coverage for chemotherapy treatment but offered to pay for her to kill herself, shortly after California passed a law permitting physician-assisted suicide.

     Stephanie Packer, a wife and mother of four who was diagnosed with a terminal form of scleroderma, said her insurance company initially indicated it would pay for her to switch to a different chemotherapy drug at the recommendation of her doctors.

     But shortly after California’s End of Life Option Act, which authorizes physicians to diagnose a life-ending dose of medication to patients with a prognosis of six months or less to live, went into effect, Ms. Packer’s insurance company had a change of heart.

     “And when the law was passed, it was a week later I received a letter in the mail saying they were going to deny coverage for the chemotherapy that we were asking for,” Ms. Packer said.

     She said she called her insurance company to find out why her coverage had been denied. On the call, she also asked whether suicide pills were covered under her plan.

     “And she says, ‘Yes, we do provide that to our patients, and you would only have to pay $1.20 for the medication,’” Ms. Packer said.

     Please watch, and reflect.

     [Applause to Ace of Spades.]

     For those who don’t read comments sections, the indispensable Pascal Fervor has kindly dug up the Web Archive Service’s copies of the articles linked in the piece below:

• The Convergence Is Complete: The execution by torture of Terri Schiavo;
• The Ultimate Destination Of The “Compassionate State:” the government-decreed starvation of Leslie Burke;
• A Little Death: Amy Richards's murder of two of her three unborn triplets;
• A Reason They Do Not Wish To Tell: Concerning “embryonic stem cell research;”
• Have A Dollop Of Horror: Concerning “assisted suicide;”
• Just Another Manic Monday: Concerning the “Groningen Protocol.”

     Thank you very much, Pas.

     As I said in the previous piece, the great majority of Americans disbelieve in evil because they don’t want to believe in it. Even when evil intentions are plainly on display, with not even a gesture at disguise, we look for ways to exculpate the evildoer. Consider these frequently employed phrases::

1. “He was badly raised.”
2. “He didn’t know any better.”
3. “Well, in light of past injustices...”
4. “How else could he get what he needs?”
5. “Our nation / race / religion has done worse.”

     The list could be extended, but the above are the most common parries to a judgment of evil. But note that while the above might explain the genesis of evil intentions – i.e., the conscious desire to wreak harm upon innocent others – the evil of them remains untouched. It can be explained; it cannot be excused.

     Let’s look at each of the above attempts in turn.

     1. “He was badly raised.”

     Stipulate that this was the case. It’s exceedingly rare that any child is raised in a complete absence of influences other than his parents. He will have aunts and uncles, cousins, acquaintances near to his own age, the parents of those acquaintances, teachers, and neighbors. These days, he’ll also have electronic contact with a much wider world. The probability that a child can reach the age of responsibility completely ignorant of what must and must not be done approaches zero.

     2. “He didn’t know any better.”

     The similarity to excuse #1 is considerable. Is it plausible? Hardly. At any rate, we didn’t accept it at Nuremberg. Those trials were predicated on the postulate that an adult must “know better” – that no amount nor intensity of propaganda can overmatch the conscience with which each of us is equipped.

     The sole exception to the Nuremberg principle is the sociopath: the man from whom the conscience is apparently absent. The existence of such a creature, possessed of human capabilities but no moral governor, is intolerable. He must be treated as we would treat a rabid dog: with a bullet to the brain.

     3. “In light of past injustices...”

     Two wrongs cannot make a right. Vengeance is sometimes justifiable as proper retribution. Victimizing the innocent is not. Nor can we merely wave aside harm done to bystanders and say “collateral damage.” While such damage is inevitable in warfare, a good-faith attempt to minimize it and a good-faith attempt to redress it afterward are morally mandatory.

     4. “How else could he get what he needs?”

     Need is one of the worst-abused words in any language. Strictly speaking, no one needs anything. Death is always an available option. Viewed less starkly, one’s survival needs are bare-minimum nutrition, clothing, and shelter from the elements – and how often does some villain pleading “need” restrict himself to those things?

     But let’s be hard on ourselves. Let’s imagine a uniquely tough case:

• Smith doesn’t have adequate food, clothing, or shelter, or the means to purchase them.
• He cannot acquire them by honest effort.
• He has no family and no friends who would succor him.
• There are no impersonal charities available to him.

     What of it? Would Smith’s circumstances excuse the victimization of Jones, who might need those things just as badly? For that matter, imagine that Jones is unbelievably rich; would that make it just for Smith to steal from him? Ask first why Smith has no friends who would help him voluntarily, for in the answer to that question lies the key to Smith’s predicament.

     Smith’s dire straits make it understandable that he might victimize Jones. Excusing it is another matter.

     5. “Our nation / race / religion has done worse.”

     Stipulate that this is so. It’s still no excuse. It cannot be, else the great-great-grandchildren of pre-Civil War slaveholders would be personally morally liable for the deeds of their forebears. But the truly vile aspect of this attempt at excusing present evil is that the perpetrators are almost never victims of any objective evil; indeed, in our present age the evildoers are among the most favored, most pampered categories of men. More, their victims are almost never connected in any way to those of “our nation / race / religion” who perpetrated evil in the past.

     But to cope with the above requires than men think – that they disregard cant and volume; that they refuse unearned guilt; that they ask hard questions and demand specific answers; that they marshal the courage appropriate to their convictions; and that they uphold a single, uniform standard for right and wrong. These are apparently difficult requirements to satisfy in our time, place, and circumstances.

     There’s more to say about our mental aversion to recognizing evil than a single essay can cover, of course. Yet the subject is far simpler than most people make it, owing to the advance among us of “moral relativism” and the tendency to “think” with our wishes rather than with the logical faculties of our brains. The required standards are utterly simple, objective, and irrefutable. They were elucidated a long time ago, first by Confucius:

     Repay kindness with kindness, but evil with justice.

     ...and a bit later by Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God and Redeemer of Mankind:

     Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

     It cannot be put more plainly than that.

     It speaks for itself:

     Spread it far and wide. Please!

     “Don’t tell them that I meant well.” – Lord Adron e’Kieron, in Steven Brust’s Five Hundred Years After

     If there’s a principal metaphysical flaw in the understandings of most Americans today, it would arise from the widespread disinclination to believe in the reality of evil. This is a consequence of the general benevolence that characterizes the American mindset. Many tend to assume that others’ moral and ethical postulates are congruent with their own: i.e., as they wish no other man harm, they assume that no other man would wish to harm them. This partially disarms them before the genuinely evil man.

     Then again, American society is founded on a degree of interpersonal trust that exceeds anything found in any previous civilization. Without the assumption of general benevolence generally felt, our nation would not function nearly as smoothly as it does. So the disinclination to believe in evil, even when instantiated immediately before one, isn’t an entirely bad thing.

     The usual deflection consists of five words:

     That sentence provides cover for a multitude of crimes.

     “I aim at evil and I will achieve evil.” – Robert Putney Drake, in The Eye in the Pyramid

     Among the unpleasant facts I had to accept in growing accustomed to my own powers was this one: The man who habitually, precisely, and coldly distinguishes among facts, desires, opinions, values, and assumptions is the rarest of all creatures. Nearly everyone “thinks” with his wishes at least some of the time. Thinking with your wishes can get you killed. It’s one of the greatest and deadliest of the flaws of Mankind: so great and so lethal that I sometimes wonder how we emerged from Cro-Magnon ancestors who simply had to know better.

     Therein lies the greatest of the dangers that arise from the disbelief in evil: not only do we not believe it, we don’t want to believe it. Thus, given any way to dismiss its existence from consideration, the great majority of us will do so. Hence the destructive power of “I’m sure he means well.”

     It can be difficult to fathom the mindset of an evil man, or a man bent on evil in some particular context. The difficulty, coupled with the desire that it not be so, makes for a very steep emotional hill. It gives the evil man an edge he will not fail to exploit.

     In an early passage in The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter asks FBI trainee Clarice Starling whether she considers him evil. She responds, “You're destructive. It amounts to the same thing.” He mocks her for her inability to see the essential difference:

     Evil is inherently a matter of the will. He who wills evil is evil, at least for that instant, whether or not he achieves his aim. He who “means well” might be many unfortunate things: foolish, ignorant, clumsy, or lacking in vision. But no matter how destructive the consequences of his deeds, he is absolved of evil intention, and therefore of evil.

     This appears circular at first blush. A brilliant novel, James Blish’s Black Easter, draws the matter in high relief:

     “Look at it this way for a moment, Dr. Ware. Very roughly, there are only two general kinds of men who go into the munitions business: those without consciences, who see the business as an avenue to a great fortune, eventually to be used for something else, like Jack here — and of course there’s a sub-class of those, people who do have consciences but can’t resist the money anyhow, or the knowledge, rather like Dr. Hess.”
     Both men stirred, but apparently both decided not to dispute their portraits.
     “The second kind is made up of people like me: people who actually take pleasure in the controlled production of chaos and destruction. Not sadists primarily, except in the sense that every dedicated artist is something of a sadist, willing to countenance a little or a lot of suffering — not only his own, but other people’s — for the sake of the end product....
     “War doesn’t satisfy me any more. It’s too sloppy, too subject to accident. It excuses too much.”
     “?” Ware said with an eyebrow.
     “I mean that in time of war, especially in Asia, people expect the worst and try to ride with the punches, no matter how terrible they are. In peacetime, on the other hand, even a small misfortune comes as a total surprise. People complain, ‘Why did this have to happen to me?” — as though they’d never heard of Job.”
     “Re-writing Job is the humanist’s favorite pastime,” Ware agreed. “And his favorite political platform, too. So in fact, Dr. Baines, you do want to afflict people, just where they’re most sensitive to being afflicted and just when they least expect it, right or wrong. Do I understand you correctly?”
     Baines had the shuddering feeling that he had explained too much, but there was no help for that now; and in any event. Ware was hardly himself a saint.
     “You do,” he said shortly.

     Dr. Baines, the CEO of “Consolidated Warfare Services,” has taken a hand in fomenting wars for decades. Until his declaration of intent to black magician Theron Ware, his above-board operations could be seen solely as a search for market opportunities. Once Baines has declared his greatest desire to Ware:

     “I would like to let all the major demons out of Hell for one night, turn them loose in the world with no orders and no restrictions—except of course that they go back by dawn or some other sensible time–and see just what it is they would do if they were left on their own hooks like that.”

     ...his evil intent can no longer be concealed. Yet many would strain to do so anyway, perhaps with a dismissal such as “He’s just being dramatic.” (And indeed, quite a lot of drama emerges from loosing forty-eight major demons upon the defenseless and unsuspecting human race. Read the novel. I highly recommend it.)

     Baines, a fictional character, may or may not exist in the real world. However, the will to wreak harm upon others surely does. Whether those who will such harm achieve their aims is independent of their essential evil.

     I intend this brief piece as a precursor to a more extended examination of evil and our mental defenses against accepting its existence. For the moment, Gentle Reader, let it stimulate some thoughts.

     In other words: More anon.

     If there’s any ability more critical to one’s safety and happiness than the ability to distinguish the evil man from the good, I can’t imagine what it might be.

     I’m treading on theologically uncertain ground in this. It’s Christian doctrine that no individual is irredeemably evil. I subscribe to that doctrine. Nevertheless, there are those who consciously embrace evil during part or all of their lifetimes. The greatest of these are long remembered; their crimes remain prominent in the histories for decades, even centuries. Of course there are preferable paths to greatness, yet great evil has a peculiar glamor of its own.

     But most of us don’t come into direct contact with the great monsters of history. For one thing, there aren’t enough of them. For another, it isn’t guaranteed that they’ll be recognizable as villains during their lifetimes. A great deal of seeming good has been done by thoroughly evil men, and much destruction has been wrought by well-intentioned men who thought they were doing good.

     The prerequisite for recognizing the villain is the ability to recognize evil.

     The beginning of the journey starts with the recognition that there is such a thing as truth: statements that accord with objective reality. Truth is fundamental to human understanding, and therefore to all questions of morals and ethics. The following comes from an essay I posted at the late, much lamented Eternity Road on September 20, 2010:

     For reasons that would require a large history to delineate, Americans have been led away from the understanding of absolute truth. We've been treated to elaborate, amphigorical explanations of why "the cat sat on the mat" should not be taken as a statement of unchallengeable fact, even if we can see Kitty sitting on the damned thing with our own eyes. Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and the rest of their tribe literally made careers out of the campaign to destroy even the possibility that language, our vehicle for thought and for interaction with one another, can express truth. But without a trustworthy, serviceable conception of truth, there can be no knowledge, including knowledge of Man's nature. Since the understanding of Man's nature is the key to reasoning about right and wrong, without truth we can make no approach to moral and ethical standards.

     Without truth, evil becomes not merely undefined, but undefinable.

     It should follow that a conscious attempt to persuade others to accept an untruth – a falsehood or a dangerously inaccurate statement – is evil. It’s possible to harm others in other ways, of course, but as I said above, much harm is done by the well-meaning. Also, the infliction of harm is sometimes necessary to effect justice. However, with the exception of games in which no one’s rights are at stake, conscious deception, whether crude or artful, is always evil.

     Consider, if you will, the oft-repeated lie that many thousands of Iraqi civilians – the fictions given have varied between 100,000 and 300,000 – were killed by American forces during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Some of those – the already deceived – purvey this lie unknowingly. But others do so knowing perfectly well that it’s false. In the usual case, those liars proceed thence to lies about the theft of Iraq’s oil by American corporations. Their purpose is evil: to paint the American liberation of Iraq from the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein as itself evil.

     Other large-scale lies of recent vintage include claims that the federal government distributes heroin and cocaine in black communities; that AIDS was invented in a government lab as a weapon of war; and that a third of American children routinely and involuntarily “go hungry.” Those who promulgate such falsehoods have an agenda. They believe getting others to accept their deceits will serve that agenda. The truth – that heroin and cocaine, the “recreational drugs” of choice for an unfortunate number of persons, are mostly produced and sold by private criminal organizations; that the source of the AIDS virus was most probably West African chimpanzees; that food is so available in the U.S. that the most common health problem the poorest Americans face is obesity – doesn’t serve that agenda.

     These lies, in other words, are tools villains use to twist the minds of the ignorant and insufficiently skeptical. Their purveyors seek to make you into a tool: to use you for their own ends.

     The conscious intention to use others for one’s own ends and against their interests is the defining characteristic of the villain.

     A healthful skepticism about bombastic claims is a survival necessity in our time. Not all hyper-dramatic claims are strokes in support of an evil enterprise, of course, but even those are worth a cocked eyebrow and some desultory fact-checking. No one’s email has ever been chosen to win a vast sum of money in some European lottery. There are no African heiresses looking to share their good fortune with you, if only you’ll oblige by sending them your bank account number and routing information by return mail. And sorry, lonely gents, beautiful Russian ladies aren’t gaspingly eager to meet and mate with you.

     No, he who asks you to accept such claims isn’t necessarily a villain...but if I were you, in my future interactions with him I’d keep one hand on my wallet and the other on my gun. Be prepared with the sharpest of sharp questions: “Who? By when? How do you know? Who else have you serviced? Can you provide references?” Count evasive answers against them.

     But soft! What email through yonder server breaks? Well, looky here! Intergalactic Representations Ltd. has read this blog and is certain they can make me a world-famous author! All I have to do is send them a copy of my most recent story and a check for $2500, and they’ll be on it faster than you can say “Eschew Rebarbative Anfractuosities And Obfuscatory Vermiculations!” Now where did I leave my checkbook...

     (Recommended: M. Scott Peck’s The People Of The Lie)

     Is there any Gentle Reader who believes that the country is not sharply divided politically? Perhaps this will change his mind:

     A federal employee union president is wracked with regret because veterans likely died at a time when she knew about gross misconduct within her Department of Veterans Affairs facility but didn’t tell congressional leaders because they were Republicans.

     “If I would’ve gone to him two years ago, who knows what kind of lives could’ve been saved,” Germaine Clarno told a radio interviewer Monday, referring to the Republican leader of a VA subcommittee. Clarno, a lifelong Democrat and social worker at the Hines Veterans Affairs Hospital in Hines, Ill., has been president of the union representing doctors at the hospital since before the deadly wait-time scandal unfolded.

     Dozens of veterans have died in recent years while waiting for appointments with doctors at multiple VA hospitals and care centers around the nation. But VA staffers systematically manipulated records to make it seem like they didn’t have long waits. The problems became so severe by 2013, that as many as 40 patients died at just the Phoenix facility.

     Nor was the disease of partisanry uber alles confined to a single VA facility:

     A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin, the site of VA’s Tomah hospital — known as “Candy Land” because its doctors doped up veterans with dangerous combinations of sedatives rather than treating their underlying conditions.

     The Tomah VA employees union didn’t take complaints to Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican, even though he is not only from Wisconsin, but is chairman of the Senate Oversight Committee with jurisdiction over management issues in government agencies.

     And for a grace note that will set the seal on this disgusting display:

     But there is no remorse in Wisconsin. The union is now running ads against Johnson, faulting him for not acting on information he was never given. The public employees union is campaigning for Russ Feingold, a Democrat who preceded Johnson in office and is now running to retake the seat.

     I’m not certain that the behavior would have been different had the VA staffers been partisan Republicans and the officials who could “do something” Democrats. I’d like to believe it, but I’m not going to flatter the GOP beyond the proper extent of my knowledge. What I do know is this: Anyone who deems the preservation of innocent lives less motivating than his distaste about speaking to a political adversary is morally unacceptable, utterly beneath contempt – and I simply don’t care about such persons’ “regrets.”

     Yet they consider us either stupid or evil. Remember that.

     [I've brought this back to the top of the stack because of the increasing shrillness coming from the fascist Left, as well as the increasing resistance to that community being displayed by good and sensible Americans. Among other things, backhanding Leftists with the absurdity, and the potential consequences, of their pretensions to omniscience rattles them terribly. They don't know how to respond. The moral? Don't give up. Stay staunch. Keep fighting! -- FWP]

     “Well, darling daughter,” he said through a half-regretful smile of remembrance, “it’s like this.”

     “A long time ago,” he said, “everyone understood that we can all make mistakes, that no one can be all-knowing, and that it’s a decent person’s responsibility, no matter how strongly he feels about something, to remember that he could be wrong. It was an important piece of a child’s education to learn that no matter how good he is at something, there’s almost certainly someone who’s better at it – and that it’s guaranteed that lots of other people are better than he is at lots of other things. You see, when you know that you could be wrong, you have to admit that other people could be right, so it would always be wrong to try to force someone else to accept your point of view. A young boy or girl who accepted those truths would normally grow up to be courteous to others, even others he thought were really, really wrong about something important.

     “Now, not every child really believed and accepted those truths, but so many did, and upheld them so firmly, that the children who didn’t believe them were compelled to act as if they believed them too. No one would let them get away with the kind of behavior that said otherwise. They didn’t like it – no one likes being compelled to hide his feelings – but they went along because the punishment for not going along was so much worse.

     “But one day there was a big war. It happened because some of the children who refused to believe that they could be wrong became politically powerful. They went to war to force their neighbors to give them stuff they wanted but didn’t deserve. The war was terrible. It went on a long time and killed a lot of young men. At the end, everybody was really tired. And some other children who didn’t believe that they could be wrong, and who liked to write and talk a lot, started saying and writing that it wasn’t because the children who started the war didn’t realize that they could be wrong. They said it was that everybody was wrong about everything – that the war had proved that there was nothing anyone could believe.”

     He paused as he shuddered afresh at his horror at learning how the mental disease that had been mislabeled skepticism had unraveled the whole of the civilized world. He reflected on his efforts to preserve his daughter’s innocence. How he’d fought to protect her from the juggernaut that had rumbled over the world! Yet forces far larger than he, and events beyond his power to control, had made all his struggles moot.

     “But a funny thing happened. It turns out that if you accept that everybody is wrong about everything, then it doesn’t matter what you believe. And that meant that it doesn’t matter what you do. Whether you’re good, respectful, and kind or mean, hateful, and brutal just doesn’t matter.”

     He drew a deep, shaky breath, let it out slowly, and did his best to smile at his daughter as he continued.

     “Anyway,” he said, “if it doesn’t matter what you do, then all that really matters is what you want and whether you have it. Lots and lots of people started to think that way. Then they started to live that way. They would do whatever it takes to get what they wanted, no matter what that did to other people. And things got bad. There was another war, even bigger than the first one, and then lots of little ones – so many little ones that there was never a time when people weren’t fighting. No one could feel safe any more. Yet no one could see what was happening, even though it was right in front of them.

     “You see, when people understand that they could be wrong, they leave other people alone, unless those others try to hurt them or steal from them. That’s what we mean by freedom. But once enough children had been raised to believe that everything everybody believes is wrong, lots of people who wanted things they didn’t have and couldn’t get felt it was okay to take them anyway. After all, who was going to tell them they shouldn’t? And for some of those people, what they wanted most was to force other people to think and live just like them.

     “You want to hear something funny, dear? Those people – the ones who wanted to force everybody else to think and live just like them – liked to say they were ‘fighting for freedom.’ Really! Of course, the kind of ‘freedom’ they wanted meant that no one else could be free. But that didn’t slow them down at all. They just kept fighting, and when they won they’d make the people they’d beaten say and do exactly what they commanded. Anyone who refused – who said he just wanted to be left alone – would be killed.

     “Anyway, it went on for a long, long time. More and more people were conquered, more and more people were killed, and the people doing the killing became more and more powerful. Eventually they came to our part of the world, and when they did, we didn’t recognize what they were doing in time to stop them. Maybe we couldn’t stop it. Maybe they had already become so powerful that nothing we could do would have made a difference. We’ll never know. But it all started with a few children refusing to believe that they could be wrong. Because that, darling daughter, is where Nazis come from.”

     He slipped a hand through the bars between their cages, tousled her hair, and won a brief smile from her. “And that is why you and I are going to die this morning.”